Mayor insists that NSB + NSG should become partially selective schools? (1 Viewer)

[Riproot]

"Missed out on 99" (putting how ridiculous this assertion is aside), meaning that they still got an incredibly good grade, right? That just proves my point. They still obtained an outstanding mark, despite their environment. Besides if they're intelligent enough to get a grade that high, why didn't they just go to a selective school?

I didn't dispute that. I'm not saying that there is only one way to do something and there is only one factor that influences a result. I said the most important was personal drive, not that it was the only thing. The fact that people from shitty schools can score in the top 5% of the state only proves my point.

It does upset me that this of all threads is the thread that gets the most attention in NCAP for months

Lower than 99 rules you out of every TSP programme ever.
Rules you out of med pretty much.
Rules you out of Law at anywhere good.
Rules you out of Advanced Engineering.
Maybe some people want better/different things than you do???
And getting a score lower than what you should simply because your tasks are easy/your teachers aren't good/the environment is discouraging/the resources aren't up to scratch/etc. is fucking bullshit.
Maybe their parents didn't want them going selective? Maybe they only wanted to in later years but there were no spots anywhere close? Etc., etc.

I don't think it is.
I know someone this year who had no personal drive, only the drive to beat people at her school who got above 97, at a not-so-great school. There are people like that at many schools who would do better at selective schools. I actually know A LOT of people that didn't expect much purely because their school was shit and just thought coming in the top 5 or first or whatever was good enough even though they could do a lot better elsewhere.

Most of the other stuff is just you guys circle-jerking and then cumming on lentern's face. ^_^

 

[effyhate]

Just gonna say that there's Bradfield right across the road from NSG and up the street from NSB and they don't have full enrollments at all so I don't understand why the Mayor isn't considering that as an option.

As someone who went to a selective school, if I heard that it was going to become partially selective, I'd move to a different selective school.

In terms of why is the selective school based in North Sydney? Well it's a nice, central location for a lot of people who attend the school, but more importantly it goes back to the school's history (mostly nsg here). NSG has been a selective school since its inception in 1914 and during the war, etc was always selective. It moved buildings a couple of times, but the reputation of the school is in the name, and thus should it remain. Don't ruin the history of the school by making it partially selective.

haha sounds a lot like an anti gay rights/marriage speech if you change a few words

 

[Lolsmith]

Lower than 99 rules you out of every TSP programme ever.
Rules you out of med pretty much.
Rules you out of Law at anywhere good.
Rules you out of Advanced Engineering.
Maybe some people want better/different things than you do???

Didn't you get lower than 99 and are now a med student? Aren't you proof that what you're writing isn't actually true? I haven't even heard of "advanced" engineering outside of UWS, which has (last time I checked three years ago) a 95 cut-off. What do you even need a TSP for anyway it has literally no impact on your further studies if you aren't entirely autistic.

And getting a score lower than what you should simply because your tasks are easy/your teachers aren't good/the environment is discouraging/the resources aren't up to scratch/etc. is fucking bullshit.

That's the reality of public education. It can be corrected entirely by the internet. You can find better resources, teachers, environments and tasks all on the internet if you are bothered. It is not up to the school to hold your hand all the way through high school and expecting otherwise is probably why kids aren't doing as well as they want to.

I don't think it is.
I know someone this year who had no personal drive, only the drive to beat people at her school who got above 97, at a not-so-great school. There are people like that at many schools who would do better at selective schools. I actually know A LOT of people that didn't expect much purely because their school was shit and just thought coming in the top 5 or first or whatever was good enough even though they could do a lot better elsewhere.

So they didn't have personal drive except for when having personal drive? This issue has absolutely nothing to do with their schools and is entirely due to the individual in question.

 

[Lolsmith]

In terms of why is the selective school based in North Sydney? Well it's a nice, central location for a lot of people who attend the school,

"Only about 5 per cent of the students were from the local area"

 

[Trebla]

I didn't dispute that. I'm not saying that there is only one way to do something and there is only one factor that influences a result. I said the most important was personal drive, not that it was the only thing. The fact that people from shitty schools can score in the top 5% of the state only proves my point.

You can also argue that environmental factors significantly correlate with personal drive. Some people thrive in competitive environments and suffer if that environment isn't there. Others cannot cope in that environment but thrive from lack of competition. Each to their own.

 

[Riproot]

Didn't you get lower than 99 and are now a med student? Aren't you proof that what you're writing isn't actually true? I haven't even heard of "advanced" engineering outside of UWS, which has (last time I checked three years ago) a 95 cut-off. What do you even need a TSP for anyway it has literally no impact on your further studies if you aren't entirely autistic.

Yes, but I am one of few exceptions.
advanced engineering exists at USyd and afaik UNSW.
TSP opens the opportunities for extra research, and resume and contact building.
Maybe people like the extra research and would prefer to do some more in-depth work on something they're studying rather than just doing the menial work that they are made to do before they get to this research later.

That's the reality of public education. It can be corrected entirely by the internet. You can find better resources, teachers, environments and tasks all on the internet if you are bothered. It is not up to the school to hold your hand all the way through high school and expecting otherwise is probably why kids aren't doing as well as they want to.

That's just not true.
Who will mark your essays? Who will correct your teachers when they mark you based on their incorrect knowledge? And most of the worth-while services are costly. Should we restrict good education at a high school level to only those who can afford it?

So they didn't have personal drive except for when having personal drive? This issue has absolutely nothing to do with their schools and is entirely due to the individual in question.

That isn't drive to do well in yourself, or the drive to do as well as you can, it is simply making the best you can put of s shit situation, which ends less-we'll than A LOT of people from better situations (selective schools).
I'm not going to agree with that, being from a school with subpar English and (now) Mathematics (and maybe other) faculties I know from first-hand experience how bad teaching, task-setting and marking can effect students.

 

[Riproot]

"Only about 5 per cent of the students were from the local area"

local area
What about everyone further north that have to go further for any other selective school?

 

[Kiraken]

Competition often serves as a means for students to strive though. True, a lot of students can "swim their own race" and personally I find that the better attitude too, but a lot of students are motivated by the prospect of "being the best" and selective schools are very good at fostering that sense of competition. Put a student motivated by competition in an uncompetitve environment and he wont achieve as much simply because the lack of competition doesnt require it

 

[Riproot]

You can also argue that environmental factors significantly correlate with personal drive. Some people thrive in competitive environments and suffer if that environment isn't there. Others cannot cope in that environment but thrive from lack of competition. Each to their own.

i completely agree with that

 

[Blue Suede]

"Only about 5 per cent of the students were from the local area"

comparatively. compared to getting to other selective schools. eg hornsby would be a pain in the arse for anyone not from the north, but people from the north can get to nsg/nsb, and because it's only 2 stops from city circle stations, so can people from all different train lines.

edit: also, nsb wasn't *always* selective afaik. I think it was from the 50s onwards or something

 

[Riproot]

Wikipedia: "North Sydney Boys High School is an academically selective, public high school for boys, located at Crows Nest in Sydney, Australia. North Sydney Boys is the best school and is predicted to eclipse James Ruse in 2014. North Sydney Boys High School is known for its high academic performance in the HSC. In the 2011 and 2012 HSC, North Sydney Boys High School ranked 2nd in the state.[4]"

Hahaha

 

[Lolsmith]

Yes, but I am one of few exceptions.

So you made something up to suit your point?

advanced engineering exists at USyd and afaik UNSW.

Weird, I have no idea.

TSP opens the opportunities for extra research, and resume and contact building.
Maybe people like the extra research and would prefer to do some more in-depth work on something they're studying rather than just doing the menial work that they are made to do before they get to this research later.

All fair points.

That's just not true.
Who will mark your essays? Who will correct your teachers when they mark you based on their incorrect knowledge? And most of the worth-while services are costly. Should we restrict good education at a high school level to only those who can afford it?

Dozens of kids get their essays commented on with criticisms on this site alone. This is literally free, not to mention the free notes that bos provides. You cannot *seriously* be arguing this point when you're in favour of keeping less capable kids out of quality education environments. This is ridiculous.

That isn't drive to do well in yourself, or the drive to do as well as you can, it is simply making the best you can put of s shit situation, which ends less-we'll than A LOT of people from better situations (selective schools).

And they all magically end up in the same place, which may or may not have been my point.

I'm not going to agree with that, being from a school with subpar English and (now) Mathematics (and maybe other) faculties I know from first-hand experience how bad teaching, task-setting and marking can effect students.

I was referring to the examples you gave, not the entirety of the education system.

You can also argue that environmental factors significantly correlate with personal drive. Some people thrive in competitive environments and suffer if that environment isn't there. Others cannot cope in that environment but thrive from lack of competition. Each to their own.

so you're telling me that an expansion of choice is what the education system needs, as opposed to sectioning off parts of society that don't live up to your incredulous ideal of what suits your beloved school's memory

local area
What about everyone further north that have to go further for any other selective school?

so tell me what percentage of students make up that part of the school

 

[Riproot]

So you made something up to suit your point?

Not really. It does rule out UNSW (but I personally do not care about that) and maybe a few other unis like UQ, Griffith, etc.

Weird, I have no idea.

It definitely exists at USyd. I knew people doing it.

Dozens of kids get their essays commented on with criticisms on this site alone. This is literally free, not to mention the free notes that bos provides. You cannot *seriously* be arguing this point when you're in favour of keeping less capable kids out of quality education environments. This is ridiculous.

I was one of those kids, but it wasn't by anyone who was incredibly good at English and online does not beat a teacher you can have a proper discussion with.
They're less capable, they should be at a school that suits them, not one where they will be out of their depth and forgotten. Why would I be for that??

And they all magically end up in the same place, which may or may not have been my point.
I was referring to the examples you gave, not the entirety of the education system.

ugh.

so tell me what percentage of students make up that part of the school

can you tell me what percentage of the school isn't made up of those students?

 

[Trebla]

so you're telling me that an expansion of choice is what the education system needs, as opposed to sectioning off parts of society that don't live up to your incredulous ideal of what suits your beloved school's memory

Wtf? That's not what I meant with that statement at all.

 

[Riproot]

Wtf are you talking about? That's not what I meant with that statement at all.

this is what cocksmith does

 

[Lolsmith]

comparatively. compared to getting to other selective schools. eg hornsby would be a pain in the arse for anyone not from the north, but people from the north can get to nsg/nsb, and because it's only 2 stops from city circle stations, so can people from all different train lines.

edit: also, nsb wasn't *always* selective afaik. I think it was from the 50s onwards or something

What do you mean "comparatively" (what you wrote after it seems to be a non-sequitur)? Easily accessible as long as they score within the right bands though right? Wouldn't want any undesirables sullying the great name of a school.

I was one of those kids, but it wasn't by anyone who was incredibly good at English and online does not beat a teacher you can have a proper discussion with.

That's true, but that doesn't disqualify there being other opportunities for improvement.

They're less capable, they should be at a school that suits them, not one where they will be out of their depth and forgotten. Why would I be for that??

This is literally the same argument for keeping poors out of rich schools. Absurd and apparently unwitting paternalism. Some vague idea that you're actually doing some sort of positive thing by allocating all the top resources to the top kids and then being confused by the fact that poorer schools are for some reason poorly resourced.

can you tell me what percentage of the school isn't made up of those students?

At least 5 percent.

Wtf? That's not what I meant with that statement at all.

You said that students do better in different environments. Some do well in high competition and some don't, just like some do better at single sex or co-ed schools. So thereby providing students and parents with a wider range of choice for what high school they or their child can attend, you can better allocate students to their suitable environments. You've argued previously in this thread about keeping kids that need this environment out because they don't fit the criteria you like and about the worries of "reputational risk".

 

[Riproot]

That's true, but that doesn't disqualify there being other opportunities for improvement.

It disqualifies your point that the Internet is a substitute for proper, good education.
Which it isn't.

This is literally the same argument for keeping poors out of rich schools. Absurd and apparently unwitting paternalism. Some vague idea that you're actually doing some sort of positive thing by allocating all the top resources to the top kids and then being confused by the fact that poorer schools are for some reason poorly resourced.

It most certainly is not.
Poor is because they can't pay for it not because they wouldn't be suited.
This is different. You put an average or below kid in a smart school and they will sink not float. They won't get the extra attention they need. They won't pick up on things as fast as other students and will fall behind due to everyone else being at the same pace.
It's not the top resources and shit, it's the resources that suit them. The teachers are used to teaching those kids and they teach at a certain level and speed that many of the kids of the same age couldn't handle.
I've seen extension two maths teachers swap to teach general. No one benefits out of situations like that.

At least 5 percent.

I'm going to say between 1% and 95% then. ^_^

 

[Lolsmith]

It disqualifies your point that the Internet is a substitute for proper, good education.
Which it isn't.

That wasn't my point but I get where you got the impression.

It most certainly is not.
Poor is because they can't pay for it not because they wouldn't be suited.

That's based on what you think. I could just as well say that they aren't suited because they can't afford it, in the same vein that you can state non-selective kids don't suit selective high schools. The criteria is different, their conception is the same, like I said before.

This is different. You put an average or below kid in a smart school and they will sink not float. They won't get the extra attention they need. They won't pick up on things as fast as other students and will fall behind due to everyone else being at the same pace.

What is your evidence of this, other than anecdotal? Do you have any or are you just operating on assumptions?

It's not the top resources and shit, it's the resources that suit them. The teachers are used to teaching those kids and they teach at a certain level and speed that many of the kids of the same age couldn't handle.

It's the same thing mang. You can't have shitty teachers being able to go into the depth and pace that good selective teachers can. This is what makes them good teachers, the fact that they can actually teach well at a high standard. Have you ever heard of a severely underfunded selective high school? Let alone one on the north shore? What about poorly resourced schools out west?

Also teachers aren't robots that can only teach at a pre-determined speed. A teacher that can get 99+ ATAR's out of kids (assuming this is how it works (it isn't)) in a selective high should be able to get decent marks (relative to the student) out of non-selective kids. This was the case for teachers I've had on both ends of the equation (moving from and to selective highs).

I'm going to say between 1% and 95% then. ^_^

My original point being that you can only speculate on how many people from an arbitrary area of Sydney attend the school, you can't (or at least, haven't) given me any indication to the validity of your argument.

 

[kennyb22]

As a student who went to a partially selective school, I'd have to say it's pretty shit (the non-selective side). Of course that's most probably because the locals came from bad suburbs, but regardless if you're going to have a school it should either be fully selective or completely non selective, none of this mixed student bullshit.

 

[resourceater]

The idea is a total dud. I understand that she feels motivated by the imperative of an expanding high school intake but compromising selective schools is not the answer. Being at a selective school myself and, not being elitist just honest, it would alter the study dynamic beyond repair. As mentioned before, teachers would be forced to cater a wider range of abilities, thus rendering that aspect redundant and well, it wouldn't be pretty in the playground either. I predict a lot of separatism, derived from those very "academic social, cultural" qualities that she thinks will enrich the environment. very subtle on the 'cultural aspect' as well